For about a decade I've written about how large companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast not only use fake consumer groups and "fauxcademic" think tanks to push their agendas, but they also throw funds at real minority, disability, or other groups with the understanding those groups will also parrot AT&T political positions when needed. With the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, AT&T has done a better job illustrating how they use these groups to create an artificial "sound wall" of support than than any writer or consumer advocate ever could. AT&T brought out the big guns for the T-Mobile deal, buying support from Hispanic groups and now the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, who falsely claim the deal is good for rural coverage:Except not. You'd be hard-pressed to find any real data that suggests AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile is good for anybody but AT&T -- and the deal is facing fierce opposition by every legitimate consumer group in the country. We've also noted, repeatedly, how the T-Mobile deal really will have little to no serious impact on AT&T's belated LTE deployment plans. Meanwhile, anyone believing that the elimination of one of four wireless competitors will result in lower prices may want to be wary of bridge and swampland salsemen.

So why is there a constant stream of organizations claiming otherwise? Because AT&T is paying them to, and there are clearly no limit of organizations that have no problem selling out both their organization's name -- and their constituents -- to keep AT&T donations flowing. The quality of AT&T's argument is made fairly apparent by the fact the only people who believe what AT&T is saying -- are people paid by AT&T to believe what they're saying.